The Court of Appeal has allowed Martin Morgan’s appeal against a High Court bench warrant issued to secure his attendance at proceedings over an unpaid confiscation order. It found that no process requiring him to attend court had been shown to have been breached, making the warrant inappropriate in the circumstances.
The case concerned an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) under section 19(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. The DPP reported that €243,583 remained unpaid under a confiscation order and sought an order that Morgan be imprisoned for non-payment. A separate motion sought his attachment and, alternatively, a bench warrant to secure his attendance.
The High Court heard the motions together in November 2020. Morgan was represented but was not present. His counsel disputed the court’s jurisdiction to order attachment or issue a warrant. The judge issued a bench warrant, relying on the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction. The appeal concerned that warrant, not a decision to imprison Morgan.
The Court of Appeal said section 19(2) proceedings seeking imprisonment for failure to comply with a confiscation order are fundamentally criminal in nature, as they address alleged criminal contempt. But it said that did not, by itself, make a bench warrant appropriate. Such warrants are normally used when someone has failed to answer a summons or breached a court order requiring attendance.
The court found no evidence that Morgan had been asked to attend voluntarily, or that he had defaulted on any legal process commanding his attendance. It therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the decision to issue the bench warrant.
The ruling did not resolve whether Morgan should be imprisoned or determine the unpaid sum. The Court of Appeal said the DPP remained free to bring a fresh, appropriately drafted motion seeking Morgan’s attachment so he could appear before the High Court and answer the allegation of contempt. It said attachment was, in principle, the preferable way to secure his attendance in these circumstances, assuming an adequate motion and supporting evidence.